DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Amarjit Singh r/o Fatehgarh Road, Near T.B.Hospital, Basant Nagar, Hoshiarpur.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Career Abroad Education Consultants Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.260, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Varinder Arora, Counsel for the OP.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant intended to go abroad, so he approached the OP and paid Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.22483 dated 21.4.2011 – Annexure C-1. An agreement – Annexure C-2 was executed between the parties. He also paid a sum of Rs.21,500/- vide receipt No.2639 dated 22.4.2011 – Annexure C-3 to the OP.

              It has been further stated that the OP asked the complainant to deposit another sum of Rs.20,000/-, which was paid on 27.4.2011 but no receipt was issued. The complainant enquired from the OP about the status of his case, and in turn, he was told that he cannot go abroad and sum of Rs.7,000/- was refunded. The complainant visited the office of OP many times but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OP filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-vis maintainability, locus standi, suppression of facts and the complainant is not a consumer were raised. On merits, it was replied that as per Contract of Engagement – Annexure C-2, the fee is non-refundable. However, it is admitted that the complainant approached for the assistance in order to get the tourist visa. It was further replied that an amount of Rs.7000/- was refunded to the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been made.  

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant made the payment of Rs.25,000/- vide receipts - Annexures C-1 & C-3 to the OP. The complainant also deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 27.4.2011 but no receipt was issued by the OP. It was lastly argued that on the asking of the complainant about the status of his case, the OP, in turn, replied that he cannot go abroad. The learned Counsel for the complainant also argued that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/- along with interest.

6.           The learned Counsel for the OP argued that the fee deposited by the complainant is non-refundable and in view of this, the present complaint is not maintainable. It was lastly argued that the OP is not entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.38,000/- to the complainant.

7.           The complainant has produced on record the receipt bearing No.22463 dated 21.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.3500/- – Annexure C-1 and the receipt bearing No.2639 dated 22.4.2011 for Rs.21,500/- - Annexure C-3 to prove the payment of Rs.25,000/-. Admittedly, there is no receipt with regard to the payment of Rs.20,000/-.

8.           Now, the only point for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount. The answer to this is in the negative.

9.           The complainant has produced on record the Contract of Engagement (Arrangement of Tourist Visa) – Annexure C-2, wherein, under the column ‘Payment Plan’, it has been recorded that the retainer fee of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.3500/- + Rs.21,500/-) is non-refundable. The said Contract of Engagement bears the signature of the complainant. Since, the complainant is signatory to the said Contract of Engagement, therefore, he is estopped from claiming the refund of Rs.25,000/-, which is non-refundable. The terms and conditions contained in Annexure C-2 are binding upon the parties. It is not the case of the complainant that his signature on Annexure C-2 was obtained by coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence.

10.         As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complaint is not maintainable, consequently, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.